John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Further reserving my right to object, we have just established 35 votes, which is sufficient to sustain a Presidential veto, which has been threatened on this bill. I hope it will motivate the other side to engage in a meaningful negotiation, which has not happened so far, so that we can resolve the situation. I reiterate my commitment to remain through a series of cloture votes, if necessary, until we get this issue resolved to the satisfaction of those who are concerned about it, including the President of the United States.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I join my colleagues in support of renewing the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act to protect American interests in the Middle East. Despite promising changes within Iranian society, Iran's external behavior remains provocative and destabilizing. Iran continues to aggressively foment terrorism beyond its borders and develop weapons of mass destruction as a matter of national policy. Consistent calls from its leaders for Israel's destruction, and the Iranian government's bankrolling of murderous behavior by Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups, should make clear to all friends of peace where Iran stands, and what role it has played, in the conflagration that threatens to consume an entire region. Nor has Iranian-sponsored terrorism targeted only our Israeli ally. According to Attorney General Ashcroft, Iranian government officials ``inspired, supported, and supervised members of Saudi Hezbollah'' responsible for the 1996 terrorist attack on Khobar Towers, which took the lives of 19 U.S. service men. According to former FBI Director Freeh, that chain of responsibility extends to Iran's most senior leadership. Critics of our Iran sanctions policy make two arguments. The first is that these sanctions are ineffective. But according to the Iranian government itself, in a 1998 report to the United Nations, ILSA caused ``the disruption of the country's economic system,'' a ``decline in its gross national product,'' and a ``reduction in international investment.'' As Lawrence Kaplan points out in this week's edition of The New Republic, since ILSA was enacted in 1996, Iran has promoted over 50 investment opportunities in its energy sector but has secured only eight oil contracts. Sanctions have a deterrent effect on international investors, notwithstanding the foreign policies some of their national governments pursue. The second argument of sanctions critics is that ILSA renewal would stifle American-Iranian rapprochement, in which we hold a strategic interest. This argument would carry weight had our government not repeatedly sought to initiate an official dialogue on normalization with Iran. But our highest leaders have extended the olive branch on several occasions. Each time, the Iranian government has rejected it. In June 1998, then-Secretary of State Albright called for mutual confidence-building measures that could lead to a ``road map'' for normalization. The Iranian government rejected this unprecedented overture. In March 2000, Secretary Albright gave another speech in which she expressed regret for American policy towards Iran in the past, called for easing sanctions on some Iranian imports, and pledged to work to resolve outstanding claims disputes dating to the revolution. Iran's government deemed this offer insufficient to form the basis for a new dialogue. In September 2000, then-President Clinton and Secretary Albright went out of their way to attend President Khatami's speech at the United Nations an important diplomatic symbol of our interest in a new relationship. But the Iranians again balked. I ask: whose policy is static and immovable America's, with our repeated diplomatic entreaties for a more normal relationship, or Iran's, which rejects all such overtures even as it steps up the very behavior we find unacceptable? Nor is it time for the United States to lift sanctions on Libya. The successful conclusion of the Lockerbie trial, which explicitly implicated Libya's intelligence services in the attack, does not absolve Libya of its obligations to meet fully the terms of the U.N. Security Council resolutions governing the multilateral sanctions regime against it. Libya has not done so. Libya's support for state terrorism, as certified again this year by our State Department, and its aggressive efforts to develop chemical and potentially nuclear weapons, exclude Libya from the ranks of law-abiding nations. Lifting sanctions now on Iran and Libya would be premature and would unjustly reward their continuing hostility to basic international norms of behavior. I support extension of ILSA in the knowledge that it is not American sanctions policy but unacceptable behavior by these rogue regimes that precludes a new policy toward them at this time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, first of all, we do not disagree over the fact that the February report of the NAFTA Dispute Resolution Panel does not prevent the United States from imposing different requirements on foreign carriers. In fact, let me quote from the report: It is important to note what the Panel is not determining. It is not making a determination that the Parties of NAFTA could not set the level of protection that they consider appropriate in pursuit of legitimate regulatory objectives. It is not disagreeing that the safety of trucking services is a legitimate regulatory objective. I agree with that. The panel goes on to say: The United States may not be required to treat applications from Mexican trucking firms exactly the same as applications from the U.S. or Canadian firms, as long as they are reviewed on a case by case basis. That is why I pointed out the difference between how a Canadian carrier can enter the United States, basically filing over the Internet, as opposed to the provisions we have in our substitute which are very stringent and detailed. However, in order to satisfy its own legitimate safety concerns the United States decides, exceptionally, to impose requirements on Mexican carriers that differ from those imposed on U.S. or Canadian Carriers, then any such decision must (a) be made in good faith with respect to a legitimate safety concern and (b) implement differing requirements that fully conform with all relevant NAFTA provisions. I believe that what our disagreement is really all about is the question of whether the Murray provisions are simply ``different methods'' or, if in their totality, the 22 requirements --there are 22 requirements in the Murray language--result in an indefinite blanket ban. The panel ruled that a blanket ban was a violation of our NAFTA obligations. As I have already mentioned on several occasions, the administration estimates that the Senate provisions under section 343 would result in a further delay in opening the border for another 2 years or more. This would be a direct violation of NAFTA. It effectively provides a blanket prohibition on allowing any Mexican motor carrier from operating beyond the commercial zones. Does that permit a case-by-case review of a carrier? I do not believe so. I would like to find one objective observer who does not view the Murray language as delaying implementation of NAFTA by 2 or 3 years. I do not see how in the world any objective observer could believe that the requirements, including onsite inspections and the inspector general going down into Mexico, could possibly do anything but delay the implementation of NAFTA, and that is what it is all about. This view is shared by a number of us, as well as the President's senior advisers. Let me give an example of a provision that could be viewed as more than simply different. It concerns how a Mexican carrier would receive authority to operate in the United States under the Murray provision. The Murray provision requires the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to conduct a full safety compliance review before granting conditional operating authority and again before granting permanent authority to assign a safety rating to the carrier. The reviews must be conducted onsite in Mexico. The problem with that requirement is that a ``compliance review'' assesses carrier performance while operating in the United States. It is conducted when a carrier's performance indicates a problem--that it is ``at risk.'' As a technical matter, a full-fledged compliance review of a Mexican carrier would be meaningless since that carrier would not have been operating in this country and would not have the type of performance data that is audited during a compliance review. If the Department of Transportation is forced to conduct what would largely be a meaningless compliance review, every carrier will receive a satisfactory rating because there will be no records or data on which to find violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. There are, three more important provisions that clearly would delay the implementation of NAFTA, and that is clearly a violation of NAFTA. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I could not help but be entertained by the remarks of the Senator from California who says--I guess she feels if she says it often enough, it will be true--that it doesn't violate NAFTA; it doesn't violate NAFTA; it doesn't violate NAFTA. Well, although she may not agree with the results of the last election, the fact is that the President of the United States happens to be an individual who believes that it is in violation of NAFTA, and his senior advisers have said the Murray language is in violation of NAFTA, and the President has said he may have to veto because of NAFTA. So with all consideration for the views that the Murray language is not in violation of NAFTA, the fact is, according to the President's senior advisers, it is. This morning at 11:15, the President said: I also am aware that there are some foreign policy matters in the Congress. And I urge Congress to deal fairly with Mexico and to not treat the Mexican truck industry in an unfair fashion; that I believe strongly we can have safety measures in place that will make sure our highways are safe. But we should not single out Mexico. Mexico is our close friend and ally and we must treat them with respect and uphold NAFTA and the spirit of NAFTA. So every Senator is entitled to their views; I view them with great respect. But the reality is that the President of the United States and his senior advisers--unless changes are made, the President's senior advisers will recommend that the President veto the bill. So that is the situation on the ground, as we say. This amendment that is pending, however, really has everything to do with discrimination, and this amendment is very simple in its language because all it says is: Nothing in this section shall be applied so as to discriminate against Mexico by imposing any requirements on a Mexican motor carrier that seeks to operate in the United States that do not exist with regard to United States and Canadian motor carriers, in recognition of the fact that the North American Free Trade Agreement is an agreement among three free and equal nations, each of which has recognized rights and obligations under that trade agreement. We need to talk about some facts for a minute. These are the numbers of trucks and inspections in the United States. There are 8 million registered trucks in the United States; 2.3 million of them have been inspected. That is 28 percent. Now, 100,685 Canadian trucks have been in the United States, of which 48,000, or 48 percent have been inspected. There have been 63,000 trucks from Mexico operating in the United States, of which 46,000, or 73 percent of them have been inspected. According to the McCain-Gramm-Domenici amendment, which the administration agrees with, we would make sure that every Mexican truck is inspected--every single one. This chart says ``inspection results/out-of-service rates.'' It says 8 percent in the United States, 9.5 in Canada, and 6 percent in Mexico. The vehicle out-of-service rate for Mexico is 36 percent. The problem is that it has been 36 percent, as opposed to 14 percent for Canada, and 24 percent for the United States. That is why we have in our substitute some very detailed, important, and very stringent requirements, including: The Department of Transportation must conduct a safety review of Mexican carriers before the carrier is granted conditional operating authority to operate beyond U.S. municipalities and commercial zones on the U.S.-Mexico border. The safety review must include verification of available performance data and safety management programs, including drug and alcohol testing, drivers' qualifications, drivers' hours-of-service records, records of periodic vehicle inspections, insurance, and other information necessary to determine the carrier's preparedness to comply with U.S. motor carrier safety rules and regulations. It requires every vehicle operating beyond the commercial zones of a motor carrier with authority to do so to display a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance decal obtained as a result of a level 1 North American standard inspection or level V vehicle-only inspection, and imposes fines on motor carriers operating a vehicle in violation of this requirement to pay a fine of up to $10,000. It requires the DOT to establish a policy that any safety review of a motor carrier seeking operating authority to operate beyond U.S. municipalities and commercial zones on the U.S.-Mexico border should be conducted onsite at the motor carrier's facilities when warranted by safety considerations or the availability of safety performance data. It requires Federal and State inspectors, in conjunction with a level 1 North American standard inspection, to verify electrotonically or otherwise, the license of each driver of such a motor carrier commercial vehicle crossing the border, and for DOT to institute a policy for random electronic verification of the license of drivers of commercial vehicles at U.S.-Mexico border crossings. There are two pages in the McCain-Gramm-Domenici substitute that require additional inspections, verification, insurance, rulemakings, et cetera. But all of those are not in violation of NAFTA. One reason why they are not is because of this information here. Federal motor carrier safety laws and regulations apply to all commercial motor vehicles operating in the United States. When the United States-Mexico border is open, all Mexican carriers that have authority to operate beyond the commercial zones must comply with all Federal motor carrier safety laws and regulations and all other applicable laws and regulations. Mexican carriers will be subject to the same Federal and State regulations and procedures which apply to all other carriers that operate in the United States. These include all applicable laws and regulations administered by the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Transportation. All of these Federal motor carrier safety requirements have to be complied with by any carrier that comes up from Mexico. For the illumination of my colleagues, this is what is required for a Canadian carrier to operate within the United States of America. This is off the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Web site. Basically, what is required is, over the Internet, to verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, that all information supplied on the form or anything relating to the information is true and correct. Then $300 is sent in and the carrier operates in the United States of America. That is what is required as far as Canadian vehicles are concerned. I hope someday carriers from Mexico will be able to exercise exactly that same procedure. We all know that is not possible now, and that is why we need very much to have additional requirements until such time as Mexican carriers meet the standards that prevail in the United States of America. I have a number of comments about section 343, the so-called Murray language, and I will not go through them right now because the subject of discussion is the pending Gramm amendment. The pending Gramm amendment basically says that we cannot discriminate against Mexico. This amendment was carefully crafted. In all candor, so that everybody knows what they are voting on, some of the language in the so-called Murray language would be negated by this because in the view of the President, in the view of this Senator, in the view of the Department of Transportation, and in the view of the country of Mexico, the language contained is discriminatory. This is a very important issue to our neighbors to the south. This is a very important issue in our relations with Mexico. It is a very important issue for those who purport to be a friend of the country of Mexico. This is a very important issue. The fact that we are going to vote on whether we choose to or choose not to discriminate against the country of Mexico, and we are taking a recorded vote on that issue, is one of significant importance. I hope all of my colleagues will vote, no matter how they feel about the Gramm-McCain amendment or the substitute on which Senator Gramm, Senator Domenici and I will seek a vote at the appropriate time. We intend to stay on this issue. We intend to do whatever we can in the future to make sure the Appropriations Committee does not legislate on an appropriations bill, particularly where it affects trade agreements between sovereign nations, and we intend to see this issue through. We are heartened by the support and commitment of the President of the United States as expressed as recently as a couple of hours ago. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Nevada for his usual courtesy and consideration. I may not even take the 5 minutes because I think we will be debating this amendment for some period of time. Let me assure my colleagues, we are not seeking to hold up the appropriations process, as was alleged earlier today. Nor is it acceptable for us to be told to go ahead and pass this legislation and hope that it is worked out in a conference where neither the Senator from Texas nor I will be present. I won't sit idly by on this issue just because I don't happen to be serving on the Appropriations Committee. Let me remind my colleagues, the jurisdiction of truck and bus safety is under the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I can assure the Senate, I was not consulted in advance regarding the Appropriations Committee's truck provisions. This is my opportunity to express my views and seek what I believe are reasonable modifications to certain provisions that are simply not workable. The amendment would take an important first step to ensure the intent of any of the provisions ultimately approved by the Congress is not allowed to discriminate against Mexico. This does not say they can't be different. It says they can't discriminate. Later on I will go through various provisions that clearly discriminate. I believe our disagreement is really about the question of whether the Murray provisions are simply different methods or if, in their totality, the 22 requirements result in an indefinite blanket ban. The panel ruled that a blanket ban was a violation of our NAFTA obligation, and the senior advisers to the President of the United States have clearly indicated they will recommend the President veto this bill if it includes either the House-passed or pending Senate language. As the Statement of Administration Policy said yesterday: The Senate committee has adopted provisions that could cause the United States to violate our commitments under NAFTA, et cetera. This is a very serious issue. The lesson here should be, No. 1, we should not be doing this on an appropriations bill. That is the first lesson. Members of the committee of jurisdiction were neither consulted nor involved in any of this process. Then once we were told it was there, we should ignore it because it is already in there and leave it to the appropriators. I will not do that. I will not do that on this issue or any other issue, including one that is viewed, at least by the President of the United States, as a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a solemn treaty entered into by three nations. This is a very serious issue. That is why we may spend a long, long time on it. A suggestion has been made that the language be dropped. It was made by a member of the Appropriations Committee. I fully support that. Let the language be dropped. We understand there is onerous language in the House. We will proceed because we can't do anything about what the other body does. Another suggestion has been to negotiate. I have to tell my colleagues again, there has not been negotiations. Thankfully, there has been a meeting. I have negotiated perhaps 200 pieces of legislation since I have been in this body, some of them fairly serious issues such as campaign finance reform, a Patients' Bill of Rights, the line-item veto, and others. I am used to negotiating. I want us to at least come to some agreement. In many respects, on the 22 requirements as imposed by this legislation, we could have some workout language. So far there has not been one comma, not one period, not one word changed in the present language of the bill. That is why Senator Gramm and I are required to at least see that we do not discriminate against our neighbor to the south, and we will have other amendments to make sure that it doesn't happen, not to mention a violation of a treaty in wording that is contained in an appropriations bill. Later this year I am going to propose a rule change on which I am sure I will only get a handful of votes. We ought to abolish the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee has taken on so much power and so much authority. It was never envisioned that we would be here debating language in an appropriations bill that violates a treaty, a solemn treaty between three nations. If I seem exercised about it, I am because we are not giving every Senator the voice that they deserve in representing the people of their State when, on appropriations bills, language of this nature is added which has such profound impact not only on domestic but international relations. I will discuss much further this important amendment by the Senator from Texas. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to speak on the pending Murray amendment. I ask unanimous consent to take as much time as I might consume.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask for 2 minutes on this issue?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we now will be addressing the issue of Mexican carriers. It is going to be, I assure the managers, a subject of extended debate. We believe also that we will have sufficient votes to sustain a Presidential veto if it comes to that. The Senator from Texas and I will be speaking on the substance of various amendments we will have. We expect, unfortunately, extended discussion on this issue. I wish to discuss the lack of negotiation on this issue. The Senator from Washington and the Senator from Alabama have refused to sit down and talk to us about this issue. I am deeply disappointed in that. I have done a lot of business on the floor of the Senate recently on some very difficult issues. On each of those occasions we have at least had a dialog in negotiations to see if we could not find common ground. Unfortunately, the managers of the bill have not allowed such a discussion or debate. I say to the Senator from Washington, I worked closely with her on an issue very important to her and her State because of a tragedy that took place on pipeline safety. No, I didn't always agree with the Senator from Washington, but we sat down and we worked together at hearings before the committee. I tell the Senator from Washington, I am very disappointed neither she nor her staff would sit down and discuss this issue with us so we could try to attempt to find common ground. I don't think we need a confrontation on this issue. I don't think the differences between the so-called Murray language and what the Senator from Texas and I are doing are that far apart. Now we have had to get the White House involved, the threat of a Presidential veto, and extended debate on this issue. I ask again the managers of the bill: Could we please have a discussion and at least find common ground on this issue? So far, there has been an adamant refusal to enter into a discussion. I must say, I am very disappointed, especially on an issue of this importance, at least in my view, to the people of my State as well as the people of this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we just concluded a meeting with several Members who were involved in this matter, including the distinguished minority whip, Senator Reid. I thank Senator Shelby, who was responsible for this meeting. I think it was helpful. Representatives of the administration were there. I think at least we were able to establish lines of communication and dialog on this important issue. Before I discuss the proposed McCain-Gramm substitute that we may be proposing, depending on the status of negotiations, I wish to emphasize the importance of this issue. Here we are on an appropriations bill--an appropriations bill--a piece of legislation that profoundly affects, in my view and perhaps far more important the view of the administration, profoundly affects a solemn trade agreement entered into between three nations: United States, Mexico, and Canada. Here we are debating a provision on an appropriations bill that is supposed to pay for the transportation needs of this country. I say again to my colleagues, this is the wrong way to do business. So, therefore, because of the deep concerns that I, Senator Gramm, Senator Bond, Senator Domenici, and many others have, we have to do what we can to see that this appropriations bill does not have language in it which, as I say, in my view and that of the administration and objective observers, is in violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. That is why we here have been tied up now for a couple of days and will continue to be so, unless we can come to some agreement that will satisfy the concerns we have that we would be violating the trade agreement. I remind my colleagues again, a panel already has declared the United States is in violation of NAFTA because of our failure to allow carrier crossings. We could be subject to sanctions to the tune of billions of dollars imposed by the Mexican Government. I hasten to add the Mexican Government has not threatened us, but we could be liable for that. I hope our negotiations can continue. I hope that the advice of the senior advisers to the President recommending a veto of the bill in its present form will not happen. There are much needed transportation projects in this appropriations bill, and, in my own view, some that are not needed. But I will not go into that at this particular time. The fact is that we need to negotiate. The areas of disagreement are not that great, but they are significant. There are 22 provisions in this legislation which cumulatively would ensure that it would be impossible to implement the carrier truck crossings for 2 or maybe as much as 3 years. I hope we can get this worked out. As I say, our differences are not that great. Unlike the House provisions, this legislation provides significant funding to enable the Department of Transportation to hire and train more safety inspectors and to build more inspection facilities at the southern border. I strongly commend the committee for this action. However, as I previously explained, I have concerns over a number of requirements included in the bill that if enacted without modifications, could effectively prevent the opening of the border indefinitely. My concerns are shared by other colleagues and the administration. The administration estimates the Senate provisions under section 343 would result in a further delay in opening the border for another 2 years or more. This would be a direct violation of NAFTA. It effectively provides a blanket prohibition from allowing any Mexican motor carrier from operating beyond the commercial zones. This view is shared by a number of us, as well as the President's senior advisors, who have clearly indicated they will recommend the President veto this if it includes either the House-passed or pending Senate language. I recognize that at first glance, many of the requirements in section 343 appear reasonable. However, I am informed by DOT officials that it simply cannot fulfill all 22 requirements imposed by section 343 in the near term. To quote from the Statement of Administration Policy, transmitted to the Senate last Thursday. The Senate Committee has adopted provisions that could cause the United States to violate our commitments under NAFTA. Unless changes are made to the Senate bill, the President's senior advisors will recommend that the President veto the bill. There may be debate back and forth as to whether these provisions in section 343 of the bill are in compliance with NAFTA. The fact is that the senior advisers to the President of the United States have determined that it places us out of compliance. Therefore, that discussion becomes somewhat academic, if the President is going to veto the bill. I would like to discuss the provisions of concern, and explain how our amendment proposes to address those concerns while seeking to retain the underlying intent of the provisions, at least in the context of safety. It is very important to point out that like the committee's approach, our amendment goes much further than the DOT had planned to go based on its May 2001, Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking on how it would address cross border safety. But our approach would not prevent the border opening indefinitely. First, section 343 requires the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to conduct a full safety compliance review before granting conditional operating authority and again before granting permanent authority and to assign a safety rating to the carrier. The reviews must be conducted onsite in Mexico. The problem with that requirement is that a compliance review assesses carrier performance while operating in the United States. It is conducted when a carrier's performance indicates a problem--that it is at risk. As a technical matter, a full fledged compliance review of a Mexican carrier would be meaningless since that carrier won't have been operating in this country and won't have the type of performance data that is audited during a compliance review. If DOT is forced to conduct what would largely be a meaningless compliance review, every carrier will receive a satisfactory rating because there will be no records or data from which to find violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Further, DOT estimates it would cost $40 million if it is required to perform a compliance review of every carrier seeking operating authority and another $10 million to perform such a review onsite. Therefore, the Senate bill would need an additional $50 million if DOT is to carry out this largely meaningless mandate. A workable alternative, however, would be to require a safety review, as included in our amendment. It is far more prescriptive than the type of review mentioned in the May 2001, notice of proposed rulemaking regarding implementation of NAFTA's cross border provisions. It would provide for a review of available performance data and safety management programs, including drug and alcohol testing; drivers' qualifications; drivers' house-of-service records; vehicle inspection records, proof of insurance, and other information necessary to determine the carrier's preparedness to comply with Federal motor carrier safety rules and regulations. If warranted by safety considerations or the availability of safety performance data, the review should be conducted onsite. I believe a safety review would go a long way in addressing the safety considerations and would likely provide the verification of data the managers of the bill are seeking. Frankly, it requires substantial analysis that is not imposed upon United States or Canadian carriers, who only need to complete an application available online and transmit it to DOT along with $300. I am very hopeful the Mexican Government will be willing to accept the type of approach described in our amendment, even though it would treat Mexican carriers substantially different than United States or Canadian carriers. Second, the administration has raised concerns with the proposed requirement that each and every time a truck crosses the border, it must electronically verify the driver's commercial driver's license, CDL. The DOT has expressed considerable concern that such a requirement would significantly impede the flow of traffic and commerce at the border. Backups can already exceed more than 4 hours at some crossings in Texas. DOT has estimated such backups would increase immensely. The idling vehicles would obviously have an enormous impact on the environment. DOT also estimates the cost of electronic verification at all 27 crossings at $14.6 million. It is important to note, we do not verify every license of every Canadian driver that crosses the northern border. I believe it would be discriminatory to check every single Mexican driver's license when we do not check other operators in this country. I believe it sends a signal we do not want to send and strongly caution all of my colleagues on this proposal. As an alternative, our amendment would require that each truck that will be operating beyond the commercial zones to be inspected prior to operating in this country and that during such an inspection, the inspector would verify the driver's CDL. Each vehicle must display a valid Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, CVSA, decal obtained as a result of a level I or level V North American Standard Inspection. It is important to note that vehicles must be reinspected every 90 days to be valid. Let me point out the Senator from Washington has offered an amendment to also require vehicle inspections. I suspect she developed the amendment after hearing last week that our amendment would include this important safety feature. In further regard to verifying a driver's CDL, our amendment calls for DOT to institute a policy for random electronic or other verification of the license of drivers crossing at the border. This would be far less discriminatory, and would not have as great an impact on crossing delays. Let me also point out that the record of Mexican drivers is better than that of either Canadian or United States drivers. Based on the available data provided by DOT, the out of service rate for Mexican drivers is 6 percent; it is 8 percent for United States drivers; and 9.5 percent for Canadian drivers. If the managers of this bill are concerned about drivers, perhaps they need to first focus on where the greatest safety problem appears to exist. Third, section 343 would require all border crossings be equipped with both weigh-in-motion, WIM, systems and fixed scales and that every commercial truck crossing the southern border must be weighed. This requirement raises significant cost, space, and time considerations. DOT contends it would result in extensive construction and could postpone the border opening until 2003. Weight enforcement has historically been a state enforcement responsibility, which is one of the reasons weigh stations are located throughout every state. In the border States, for example, each State already has numerous weigh stations. California has 62 fixed scales and 10 weigh-in-motion systems. Arizona has 20 fixed scales and 5 weigh-in-motion systems. New Mexico has 12 fixed scales and 2 weigh-in-motion systems. Texas has 47 fixed scales and 2 weigh-in-motion systems. The estimates cost of standard weigh-in-motion installation for a 4- lane configuration is $715,000. And while such systems help determine whether a truck should be weighed, a citation cannot be issued off the reading of weigh-in-motion equipment. FHWA further estimates the cost of installing fixed scales approximately $2 to $3 million each. I note such a requirement is not imposed on trucks entering the United States from Canada. Moreover, this mandate simply is not the best use of limited resources. One crossing only had 198 trucks cross last year. I question the logic of requiring both a fixed-scale and weight-in-motion system at such a location. At a minimum, shouldn't we first be concerned about those locations with the greatest volume of traffic? Our amendment would require each crossing to have a means of weighing a carrier and for DOT to initiate a study to determine which crossings should also be equipped with weight-in-motion systems that would enable State inspectors to verify the weight of each vehicle. It would not shift weight enforcement responsibilities from the States to the Federal Government, nor would it mandate that all 17 crossings have equipment that may not be needed. Fourth, section 343 restricts a carrier's insurance provider to be based in the United States. While I am not opposed to requiring proof of valid insurance and for the insurance provider to be licensed in the United States, limiting providers to only those based in the United States would prevent a number of large providers from providing insurance, including Lloyds of London which covers many Canadian carriers. I am informed this could also raise issues with regard to NAFTA and WTO obligations. Therefore, our amendment would strike the proposed requirement for an insurance provider to be based in the United States. Fifth, section 343 would prevent compliance with our NAFTA obligations until the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration completes six rulemakings or policy implementations required under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. Clearly, an agency should be held accountable to fulfill the obligations imposed on it. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is no exception. Perhaps if the previous administration had ever nominated an Administrator to provide leadership over this agency, the rulemakings would have been carried out in a more timely manner. After all, the driving force behind its creation was the overwhelming evidence that motor carrier safety was in dire need of leadership. Yet President Bush's nomination of Joe Clapp to be Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration last week marks the first time we will have had the opportunity to consider and confirm an administrator for this critical post. Perhaps if the Senate would confirm the pending nominee to head the Department of Transportation's General Counsel's Office, the Department would be better equipped to complete these and other pending rulemakings. It is ironic to me that the proponents of section 343 are critizincig the current administration for the lack of action by the former, while at the same time holding up the current confirmation process. Our amendment proposes to require DOT to issue several policies that we believe can readily be issued before the end of the year, including a policy requiring motor carrier safety inspectors to be on duty during all operating hours at all southern border crossings used by commercial vehicles; a policy to establish standards to help determine the appropriate number of Federal and State motor carrier inspectors for the southern border; and a policy to prohibit foreign motor carriers from operating in the United States that are found to have operated here illegally. Our amendment further instructs the Department to complete the remaining three rulemakings listed in section 343. If the Department is unable to do so, which may be the case since there are holds on the pending nominee responsible for the rulemakings, it is to transmit to the Congress, within 30 days after the date of enactment of this act, a notice in writing that it will not be able to complete any of the rulemakings prior to the opening of the border that explains why it will not be able to complete the rulemaking, and the precise date it expects to complete the rulemaking. I am concerned that as much as DOT may want to finish these rulemakings, given the lack of a general counsel and other staffing considerations as a result of the transition, they simply might not be able to do so. Our ability to fulfill our NAFTA obligations should not be delayed by congressional ``holds.'' Sixth, section 343 requires the DOT inspector general to certify in writing that eight conditions have been met prior to permitting the President to open the border. Unfortunately, a number of the directives are, in my judgment, inappropriate requirements for an inspector general. I do not believe it would be appropriate for the IG to be required to certify certain actions of the Mexican Government. Nor do I think it would be appreciated if someone from the Mexican Government were making pronouncements about our practices, all contingent upon compliance with our NAFTA obligations. Moreover, both the DOT Secretary and the DOT Inspector General believe these provisions call for inappropriate operational management by the inspector general. These proposed functions go beyond the scope of authorized activities in the Inspector General Act. Implementation of the NAFTA cross-border trucking provisions should not be conditioned on actions by the Inspector General. We have the greatest respect for the work of the Office of the Inspector General. Therefore, our amendment would instead direct the inspector general to report on the number of Federal motor carrier safety inspectors hired, trained as safety specialists, and prepared to be on duty during hours of operation at the southern border by January 1, 2002; and to provide periodic reports on several other border- related issues. These would include reporting on, No. 1, the adequacy of the number of Federal and State inspectors at the United States- Mexican border; No. 2, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's enforcement of hours-of-service rules; No. 3, whether United States and Mexican enforcement databases are sufficiently integrated and accessible to ensure that licenses, vehicle registrations, and insurance information can be verified at border crossing or by mobile enforcement units; and No. 4, the level of capacity at each southern border crossing used by commercial vehicles to conduct a sufficient number of vehicle safety inspections and to accommodate vehicles placed out-of-service as a result of the inspections. We believe these reports would be very useful to the Secretary and the Congress as we all work to ensure that adequate safety enforcement efforts by the States and Federal Government are being carried out as we fulfill our NAFTA commitments. Finally, section 343 would define the term ``Mexican Motor carrier'' as a ``Mexico-domiciled motor carrier operating beyond the United States municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border.'' Based on this definition, nearly the entire section would only be applicable to carriers that had been operating illegally in this country and a few that have authority. I am confident this is not the Appropriation Committee's intent and note there was an effort to strike the definition with a technical amendment on Friday. However, striking that definition might then impose many of the requirements on those carriers that will only be operating in the commercial zones, as well as on United States and Canadian vehicles. The focus of this provision was to have been aimed at the long-haul carriers. The definition must be modified to clarify the intent. The provision should only apply to those motor carriers domiciled in Mexico that seek authority to operate beyond municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border and only to those vehicles that will be operating beyond the municipalities and commercial zones. We must allow Department of Transportation sufficient flexibility to effectively administer its motor carrier safety enforcement responsibilities. The language in section 343 does not meet that standard. I urge my colleagues to support modifications to section 343. Without changes, we can look forward to a veto of this bill. I would not suggest the managers take the risk that we would not have the votes to sustain the President's first veto. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Reid, Senator Shelby, and others for beginning a dialog on this very important issue. During the meeting a suggestion was made that all of the provisions be dropped from the appropriations bill--which I think would be entirely appropriate because they are legislating on an appropriations bill--and the Senate and House go to conference with the onerous and unacceptable House provision in it. That is perfectly acceptable to me because there is nothing I can do as a Member of this body to affect what the other body does. But as long as we have these provisions, the 22 provisions which cumulatively, in the view of the senior advisers to the President, make NAFTA unable to be implemented for at least 2 or 3 years, then we shall have to continue the parliamentary process. So I think there are a number of options available, including dropping the entire language, which is what a senior Member has proposed, which I agree with, and let it go to conference with the other body, or accept specific amendments. Another amendment the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, has is to make sure Mexico is treated, in whatever implementation of NAFTA is accomplished, on an equal basis with the United States and Canada. I think that would be a very important amendment because we can't send a signal that we are somehow discriminating against one of the signatories of the North American Free Trade Agreement. So I hope we can get this worked out. I hope my colleagues will understand, in our desire to complete this legislation, the importance of this issue to all Americans, but particularly those of us from border States, because we are the ones who have been most impacted by the North American Free Trade Agreement. We will be the most impacted on the border with implementation of that agreement, so we look with concern to the legislation before this body. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. McCAIN. I object. I would like to speak on the bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment. I will not take very much time because I just discussed with the Senator from Washington an amendment we would have which we would propose, perhaps, as a second-degree amendment to the first-degree amendment of the Senator from Washington. But more importantly, we hope perhaps we can work out an agreement in the areas in which we are in disagreement. Over the weekend, I examined the language in the Transportation appropriations bill and our concerns about it. I do not think those concerns are unbridgeable. So I would like to speak for just a few moments. And hopefully we can discuss this issue and debate it and then, if necessary, vote on the Murray amendment. If not, hopefully we can work out some agreements which will achieve the goal we all seek. The goal we all seek is simple: That Mexican trucks that are allowed to come into the United States of America, according to the North American Free Trade Agreement--this is in compliance with the North American Free Trade Agreement. The United States has already been found, by a panel, to be out of compliance with the North American Free Trade Agreement because of our failure to allow trucks that originate in Mexico to come into the United States. What we need is a way they can come into the United States but that the American people and the Mexican people will have the total and complete confidence that every reasonable safety measure has been employed to prevent needless death on the highways of America. That is the goal we all seek. As we know, the House has taken action, as part of the 2002 Department of Transportation appropriations bill, that would absolutely prevent the President of the United States from abiding by our NAFTA obligations. It stripped the bill of all funding intended to address motor carrier safety issues along the southern border. Second, it adopted an amendment to prohibit the approval of any Mexican carriers to operate in this country. That amendment is a blanket prohibition. It is in direct violation of NAFTA, and it is wrong. It is discriminatory, and it must not prevail. The Senate appropriations subcommittee, under the leadership of the Senator from Washington, has taken a different approach and one that I think is very supportable in part but perhaps not entirely. The bill provides significant funding to enable the Department of Transportation to hire and train more safety inspectors and investigators and to build more inspection facilities at the southern border. I commend the committee for this action. I have concerns, however, over a number of requirements included in the bill that, if enacted without modification, could effectively prevent the opening of the border indefinitely. My concerns are shared by other colleagues, and those concerns are shared by the administration. The administration estimates that the Senate provisions would result in a further delay in opening the border for another 2 years or more. This would be a direct violation of NAFTA. It effectively provides a blanket prohibition against allowing any Mexican motor carrier from operating beyond the commercial zones. And this is a view shared by a number of us, as well as the President's senior advisers. By the way, the present state of play is that if the Mexican Government chose to--since the United States has been found to be in violation of NAFTA--they could impose billions of dollars of sanctions on United States goods. I hasten to add, I have seen no indication that the Mexican Government wishes to take such action. Their object is to try to get their carriers into the United States of America as agreed to under the NAFTA agreement. As a leading sponsor of the 1999 legislation creating the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, I strongly support proposals to advance truck and bus safety. I recognize the Senate provisions are largely intended to address safety concerns. Unfortunately, some of the provisions' mandates simply are not achievable. The provisions are overly rigid and burdensome. The modifications, I believe, could go a long way toward promoting motor carrier safety in a nondiscriminatory manner. At a later time, I will discuss a number of the concerns that I and others and the administration have about the bill. I have some very specific ideas as to how we can address these concerns. But at the moment, since I believe we are in some active discussions, I will not take the time of the Senate in going through all these specifics. I will again point out that the administration, last Thursday, sent over a letter saying that the President had no choice but to veto the bill with the present provisions as contained in the Senate Transportation appropriations bill. I do not think the President wants to veto the Transportation appropriations bill. I do not want the President to do that, nor do a majority of the Members of the Senate. But let me make it perfectly clear, the House action is totally unacceptable. I hope we can work with the Senator from Washington, and other interested Senators, particularly, I might say, with those who represent border States. The majority of this traffic, initially, will be crossing, obviously, our southern borders. Already, our Canadian borders are open. Clearly, that is not the issue. So those of us--Senator Gramm of Texas and I, and my colleague, Senator Kyl--and others who represent border States, where the majority of this commercial activity would take place, feel very strongly about this issue. I might say, also, we are the last ones--the last ones--who would countenance a situation to prevail that would place the lives and property of our citizens in danger. It is across the southern border where most of this activity initially will take place, although I believe I will live to see the day when we will see basically open transportation between Canada and Mexico. As it has been a boon to the economy in Canada, so it can be across our southern border. I hope we can deal with this issue in the ensuing hours. I understand the Senator from Washington may be discussing this issue with the Secretary of Transportation. We encourage all Members to get involved in this issue. It is a very important one. We are not talking about a policy dispute. I emphasize, we are talking about a solemn agreement that was entered into between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. That agreement called for certain safety conditions--which I believe we can satisfy, in the view of most objective observers, satisfy the safety issues--to come into compliance with the North American Free Trade Agreement and have the same situation prevail on our southern border as prevails on our northern border, as the Senator from Washington has with Canada on her border. The Senator from Texas and I would like to see the same situation prevail on our border that prevails on the border of the Senator from Washington with Canada. I hope we can work it out. We believe this is a very serious and important issue because we are talking about treaty violations, possible sanctions against the United States of America. I am firmly convinced that we can come to a reasonable conclusion and not have to have this thing spill over into a very unfortunate situation where the President of the United States may have to veto it. I hope to avoid that. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe the pending business is an amendment by the Senator from Washington; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill is important to the Nation's energy resources, improving water infrastructure, and ensuring our national security interests. Let me first commend the managers of this bill, the distinguished Chairman Senator Reid and Ranking Member Senator Domenici, for their hard work in completing the Senate bill in order to move the appropriations process forward. The bill provides funding for critical cleanup activities at various sites across the country and continues ongoing water infrastructure projects managed by the Army Corp of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. The bill also increases resources for renewable energy research and nuclear energy programs that are critical to ensuring a diverse energy supply for this Nation. These are all laudable and important activities, particularly given the energy problems facing our Nation. While I have great respect for the work of my colleagues to complete the committee recommendations for the agencies funded in this bill, I am also disappointed that the appropriators have once again failed to abide by a fair and responsible budget process by inflating this bill with porkbarrel spending. Unfortunately, my colleagues have determined that their ability to increase energy spending is just another opportunity to increase porkbarrel spending. This bill is 5.8 percent higher than the level enacted in fiscal year 2001, which is greater than the 4 percent increase in discretionary spending that the President wanted to adhere to. In real dollars, this is $2.4 billion in additional spending above the amount requested by the President, and $1.4 billion higher than last year. So far this year, with just two appropriations bills considered, spending levels have exceeded the president's budget request by more than $3 billion. A good amount of this increase is in the form of parochial spending for unrequested projects. In this bill, I have identified 442 separate earmarks totaling $732 million, which is greater than the 328 earmarks, or $300 million, in the Senate bill passed last year. I have no doubt that many of my colleagues will assert the need to expend Federal dollars for their hometown Army Corps projects or to fund development of biomass or ethanol projects in their respective States. If these projects had been approved through a competitive, merit-based prioritization process or if the American public had a greater voice in determining if these projects are indeed the wisest and best use of their tax dollars, then I would not object. The reality is that very few people know how billions of dollars are spent in the routine cycle of the appropriations process. No doubt, the general public would be appalled that many of the funded projects are, at best, questionable--or worse, unauthorized, or singled out for special treatment because of politics. This is truly a disservice to the American people who rely on the Congress to utilize prudent judgement in the budget approval process. Let me share a few examples of what the appropriators are earmarking this year: additional $10 million for the Denali Commission, a regional commission serving only the needs of Alaska; $200,000 to study individual ditch systems in the state of Hawaii; earmark of $300,000 for Aunt Lydia's Cove in Massachusetts; $300,000 to remove aquatic weeds in the Lavaca and Navidad Rivers in Texas; $3 million for a South Dakota integrated ethanol complex; $2 million for the Sealaska ethanol project; two separate earmarks, totaling $5 million, for gasification of Iowa Switch Grass; additional $2.7 million to pay for electrical power systems, bus upgrades and communications in Nevada; $500,000 to research brine waste disposal alternatives in Arizona and Nevada; and, $9.5 million to pay for demonstrations of erosion control in Mississippi. These are just a few examples from the 24-page list of objectionable provisions I found in this bill and its accompanying report. As I learned during the consideration of the Interior appropriations bill when my efforts failed to cut wasteful spending for a particular special interest project, an overwhelming majority of my colleagues accept and embrace the practice of porkbarrel spending. I respect the work of my colleagues on the appropriations committee. However, I do not believe that the Congress should have absolute discretion to tell the Army Corps or the Bureau of Reclamation how best to spend millions of taxpayer dollars for purely parochial projects. I repeat my conviction that our budget process should be free from such blatant and rampant porkbarrel spending. Unfortunately, to the detriment of American taxpayers, the practice of porkbarrel spending has advanced at light-speed in the last decade and shows no sign of abating. Just look at the numbers. We have witnessed an explosion of unrequested projects passed by Congress in the last decade. According to the Office of Management and Budget, there were 1,724 unrequested projects in 1993; 3,476 in 2000; and 6,454 unrequested projects this fiscal year. We all know the direction this spending train is going. Come October, spending bills will be piled-up, frantic negotiations will ensue, a grand deal will be struck, and guess what? Those spending caps we were supposed to abide by will just fade away. I hope I am wrong.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me quote from an October 23, 2000, issue of ``U.S. News & World Report'' entitled ``Washington Goes On A Spending Spree.'' . . . a 56-foot, iron rendition of the Roman god of fire and metalwork. Built as an entry for the 1904 World Fair, it won the grand prize in the Palace of Metallurgy. Steward Dansby, executive director of the Vulcan Park Foundation, says officials at the organization talked to Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby about helping to fund the renovation. ``Why are federal tax dollars being spent on a statue in Birmingham?'' asked Dansby. ``Because Vulcan is symbolic of American industrial strength. He represents the working person and. . . . [This is the best part.] These are federal dollars that would have gone somewhere.'' There are statues all over America that need refurbishment. I hope everybody lines up with statues that need to be refurbished because the store seems to be open. I know this amendment will not pass, but everybody ought to be on record as to whether they support this kind of porkbarreling. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Fine.

Mr. McCAIN. Finally, Mr. President, as I said before, there are statues all over this Nation erected to worthy, wonderful, and patriotic Americans as well as people from other countries that need refurbishment. If we are going to start down this path of millions of dollars to refurbish a statue of Vulcan, I don't know where it all ends. I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is with great disappointment I again speak before the Senate about the compounding practice of porkbarrel spending, particularly in this year's Interior appropriations bill. Earlier this year, the administration and, I believe, our leadership pledged to curb the Federal Government's practice of funding extraneous porkbarrel spending. I applaud the administration for its responsible fiscal stance. There is a chance for us to get serious. It might sound amusing. But let me tell my colleagues that, according to the Washington Post, House Members requested 18,898 earmarks in appropriations bills passed thus far. Considering this bill in the Senate on Interior, the subcommittee reports that it received 1,799 requests for select projects. That is a threefold increase since 1993. It is shameful. This year's Interior appropriations bill is no different. It includes $433 million in wasteful and unnecessary spending projects that have not been reviewed to determine if they are indeed the highest funding priorities. This amount is $153 million higher than the bill last year. Let me highlight a few examples for you: $5 million to pay for fish screens in the Northwest power planning area; an increase of $2 million for the National Fish Health Lab at the Leetown Science Center--you will notice that most of these are designated geographically--an additional $350,000 for the Chicago Wilderness Program; $1 million for noxious weed management at Montana State University; $150,000 to rehabilitate a barn at the John Hay National Wildlife Refuge in New Hampshire; $3.5 million to renovate a single lodge in a wildlife refuge in North Carolina; $700,000 for exhibits at the Rangle National Park in Alaska; and an extra $160,000 set aside for public education on the Yukon River Salmon Treaty. I think that is also Alaska. One of my favorite monuments of porkbarrel spending, another $2 million is provided to continue refurbishing the Vulcan Monument in Alabama. This particular monument also received $1.5 million last year. Now we are going to spend $3.5 million to refurbish the Vulcan Monument. Earmarks for Alaska continue to exceed unprecedented levels, some of which are questionable inclusions in this bill. For example, an increase of $1.3 million is earmarked for an Alaska Native aviation training program. I happen to sit on the Commerce Committee. We were never asked to authorize that. Another $250,000 for the Alaska Market Access Program; $1.1 million for the Cook Inlet Agriculture Association; and $2 million for construction of kiln drying facilities. My colleagues are well aware the National Park Service still faces a $5 billion backlog in capital maintenance and resource needs, and we are spending $2 million for the construction of kiln drying facilities. After years of unchecked, questionable spending, we are in the unfortunate position of facing critical budget constraints that will hamper our ability to fund fully many necessary Federal programs. Instead, we are cutting deep into the taxpayers' pockets once again by expecting them to shell out more than $433 million in porkbarrel spending included in this bill. I have compiled a 24-page list of objectionable earmarks and provisions in H.R. 2217. Unfortunately, it is too lengthy to include in the Record. But it will be available on my Senate Web page. Now we come to the amendment. Here is the Vulcan God of Fire and Iron. The colossal statue of Vulcan God of Fire and Iron was in the Palace of Mines and Metallurgy, where it represented the great iron and fuel industries of Alabama. The figure was cast in iron from a model by G. Morelli, a New York sculptor. It was brought to St. Louis in sections in over seven freight cars and mounted on a pedestal of coal and cike. The statue of Vulcan God of Fire and Iron stood 50 feet high and weighed 100,000 pounds. It was the largest iron casting ever made, and next to ``Liberty Enlightening the World,'' was the largest statue ever constructed. At the close of the Exposition the figure was removed to Birmingham and set up in Capital Park to remain as a permanent monument. It is a very impressive statue. Now, in the bill before the Senate today--which, I mentioned, contains over $430 million in spending items that have not been properly reviewed to determine their worthiness for Federal funding-- there is another $2 million to add to the $1.5 million last to continue Vulcan's face-lift. At first blush, having the Federal Government give money to a Roman god may appear to violate the constitutional separation of church and state. Others, with some reason, may believe that this is a rather strange use of limited tax dollars. After all, while the on-budget Federal surplus is rapidly dwindling, why should Federal dollars pay for a face-lift of a statue of a Roman god in Alabama? But, Mr. President, I worry this appropriation may set a dangerous precedent for others to follow that will only add millions and millions to the billions and billions and billions in pork barrel spending doled out year after year. For example, what is to stop a Senator from sunny Arizona or New Mexico from demanding Federal dollars for a statue of Apollo, god of the Sun? Or how to we prevent a Senator from California to beseech money for a statue of Bacchus, god of wine? Or a Senator from Georgia, home to the great city of Athens, from asking for Federal funds to pay tribute to the Goddess Athena? Or even a Senator form the home of some of the best hunting this side of the Mississippi, West Virginia, from getting Federal funds for Artemis, the ancient Greek goddess of the hunt? Maybe this is the time to stop this. Not one more Federal dollar should be spent on this kind of foolishness. I ask my colleagues to extinguish this Roman god of fire and strike a victory for taxpayers--and Metis, the goddess of prudence--by throttling down our insatiable appetite for pork barrel spenidng-- starting today. Finally, Mr. President, there are statues--for a moment of seriousness--all over this Nation that require refurbishing.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. Amendment No. 904

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the parliamentary situation such that there will be a vote at 1:45?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to clarify for the Record why I voted to table the Durbin amendment to H.R. 2217, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. First of all, once national monuments are designated, similar to other federal designations, those lands are withdrawn from any further mining activity, with exception to existing leases. My understanding is that nearly all of the recent monuments designated by the prior Administration are protected in this manner. Only one of the newly established monuments in Colorado has specific provisions in its proclamation that could potentially allow some type of oil or gas mining development. Unless the Congress or the President by executive action changes the terms of the original proclamation that established these monuments, these lands areas are protected. I would imagine that such changes would be difficult to approve. The second reason I opposed this amendment is that I object to the process by which many of these monuments were designated by the previous Administration. If important land use issues like this one had been thoroughly evaluated during an open and fair public process prior to the monument designation, the Senate would not have to vote on this type of amendment. The use of the 1906 Antiquities Act is not an appropriate way to unilaterally cut off millions of acres of land from public use by fiat nor does it allow for the type of open and fair input to those living and working on and near those lands. Our democratic process should promote such procedural fairness and consultation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is this concerning the amendment on the B-1 that is included in this, or is this in addition to the 5 minutes?